See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236902886

DETERMINING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF

MASS HOUSING PROJECTS (MHPs)

Conference Paper · August 2013

CITATIONS READS

8 887

3 authors:

Emmanuel Adinyira Divine Kwaku Ahadzie

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and T… Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and T…
73 PUBLICATIONS 137 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 419 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Titus Ebenezer Kwofie

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and T…
39 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Theory Development in Project Management Research View project

The Future of the Construction Industry in Ghana View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Titus Ebenezer Kwofie on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DETERMINING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF MASS HOUSING PROJECTS (MHPs)

E. Adinyira1 D. Ahadzie2 T. E. Kwofie1

1
Department of Building Technology, KNUST-Kumasi, Ghana
2
Centre for Settlement Studies, KNUST-Kumasi, Ghana
1

ABSTRACT

It is argued that, in order to successfully manage and deliver large complex projects, one has to gain a
precise understanding of the characteristics and particularities of that project. Mass Housing Projects
(MHPs) differ significantly from the 'one-off' traditional projects often encountered in the construction
industry and thus require unique management skills and approach in its implementation. MHPs are
characterised by managerial and communication ineffectiveness inherent from their nature, features
and particularities. Understanding the unique characteristics of MHPs are aimed at improving its
organisation, planning, communication and managerial effectiveness to improve delivery. Through
comparing 'one-off' traditional projects and Mass Housing projects from literature, focus group
discussion and questionnaire survey, 10- unique features of Mass Housing Projects were established
from management perspective. Mean scores and Kruskal-Wallis were used to test the level of
agreements to the variable by the respondents. Also through Kruskal-Wallis test, 9-unique features had
p-values greater than 0.05(p>0.05) showing that there were no significant variations in the means and
respondents gave consistent responses, interpretations and low variability to the variables. The study is
a preliminary stage of exploring the unique features of MHPs and its impact on communication
performance among the project team.

Keywords: Mass housing projects, project feature, project management

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Projects are unique and share distinguishing characteristics from one project to the other. The features of
any project has significant impact on its initiation, organisation and management and contributes hugely
to its success or failure. Mass Housing Projects (MHPs) are characterised by inefficient communication
among project teams that often result in considerable amount of unproductive time and managerial
ineffectiveness on mass housing projects in developing countries (Enhassi & Burges, 2007; Enhassi,
1997). These ineffective communication and managerial inefficiencies among project teams are inherent

1 2 1
eadinyira.feds@knust.edu ahadziedk200@yahoo.com teeagk@yahoo.co.uk
1
from the unique nature of MHPs whiles there has been no attempt to clearly define and determine these
unique features of MHPs.

It is said that mass housing projects differ significantly from 'one-off' projects and thus requires unique
managerial skills and efforts to deliver them successfully (Ahadzie et al, 2007; Adinyira et al, 2012).
Clearly known and established project features or characteristics of any type of project will be a
significant tool towards evolving and enabling frameworks for effective project management. From
managerial perspective, organisation and operations are key component of management practice.
Projects have definite and unique distinguishing physical attributes, organisational and operational
features (Manu et al, 2010). These unique groups of features of projects influence greatly on
communication, health and safety, managerial effectiveness, project performance etc. The understanding
of the unique features of MHPs and their implications for both management and research is still very
limited. This study thus attempts to establish the unique features of Mass Housing projects that makes
them different from 'one-off' traditional project by exploring it 'unique physical, organisational and
operational features'. This is a preliminary stage of an on-going investigation into the unique features of
Mass Housing projects (MHPs) to predict its impact on communication performance among the project
team in developing countries. To effectively study MHPs, a clear definition of mass housing project
(MHPs) is required to differentiate it from other traditional types of construction projects.

2.0 DEFINITION OF MASS HOUSING PROJECTS (MHPs)

Typically, the term MHPs was imbibed into the Construction Industry from the manufacturing sector to
describe mass production techniques of housing development projects (Ahadzie, 2007). But from
literature, all attempted definitions use the physical attributes of the project such as size, nature of
designs, extent of resources involved etc (Ahadzie et al., 2007; Yüksel and Gökmen, 2010; Urban, 2012;
Folaranmi, 2012; Turk and Guven, 2008). The main underlining themes in most MHPs definition is, 'in
large unit production', 'multiple site location' and 'repeated schemes'. These definitions however fail to
incorporate the managerial and contractual connotations of the project. In the context of this study, Mass
Housing project is defined as:
'the construction of standardised multiple domestic house-units usually in the same or several
geographical locations executed within the same project scheme and under the same
management and contract' (Ahadzie, 2007).

Based on the theoretical and the practical understanding of the situation in Ghana, the definition is still
relevant for the study. From the above definition it is worth to note that, the designs and schemes may
be speculative or specific customer defined as oppose to the main assumption of speculative

2
development by Ahadzie (2007). The underlining fact is that the designs remain standardized, repetitive,
managed by same defined team, under uniform contractual arrangement and mass-scale delivery of
house-units. Dwelling on the United Nations Economic Commission's recommendation of an annual
production rate of 10 house-units per 1000 population for developing countries to meet their present and
future housing needs (Edmonds and Miles, 1984). This study adopts a minimum delivery of 10-units per
scheme as a precondition for the scheme to be accepted a mass housing scheme.

3.0 MASS HOUSING PROJECT FEATURES

The features of projects are major parameters and inputs for the right choice of procurement method,
risk analysis, communication strategy and technology as well as dictating the resource requirements for
the delivery of the project (Favie and Maas, 2008). It is emphasized that every project has its own
features and these features require specific competences from teams, organisations and companies to
effectively manage and execute the project (Favie and Maas, 2008). Clear understanding of project
features and how each affects the decisions and actions will thus allow for thorough planning and
delivery option decisions to ensure its successful delivery (Kipp et al., 2008)

Project features (PFs) have been viewed and classified through several methods. Massive construction
projects, Multi projects, Super Mega, Mass project, Mega projects have been used to describe the
enormity of the project, cost outlay and it managerial and construction challenges (Hernández, 2008;
Kipp et al., 2008; Thorpe et al., 1999; Haynes, 2002; Kumaraswamy, 1997). Huge mega projects have
gained significant attention due to cases of budget overrun, management problems or outright failure
inherent from their exhibited features and characteristics (Kipp et al., 2008). The physical,
organisational and operational features of construction projects are critical component in the
management of the project (Manu et al., 2010). Mass Housing projects (MHPs) share features that are
unique from 'one-off' projects thus making their management inherently more difficult (Henderson,
2009; Ahadzie, 2007; Vanita and Yang, 2006; Adinyira et al, 2012). These unique features of MHPs
impact on the operational, organisational and managerial actions during the construction process. This
justifiably makes certain practices and managerial interventions on 'one -off' traditional projects non
applicable to MHPs. Though mass housing projects show a number of common characteristics, such as
size, technological and institutional complexity, political involvement and public awareness with other
mega traditional 'one-off' projects, they also exhibit unique features that require different unique
managerial approach in its delivery (Ahadzie, 2007; Kipp et al., 2008; Adinyira et al, 2012). This study
therefore seeks to reveal the unique features of MHPs. Through literature review and focus group
discussion MHPs were compared to 'one-off' traditional project to evolve its uniqueness based on its
physical, organisational and operational attributes as presented in Table 1.0.

3
 TABLE 1.0: DERIVING THE UNIQUE MHPs FEATURES FROM TRADITIONAL ONE-OFF PROJECTS
S/No. LITERATURE SOURCE 'ONE-OFF' PROJECT AUTHORS DERIVED COMPARATIVE MHP FEATURES
FEATURE
Behm, Favie Kipp et Chua & McKay Manu et
(2005) and al., Goh et al. al,
Maas, (2008) (2005) (2002) (2010)
(2008)
1 Single construction site for project √ √ Multiple construction sites for various housing units under each
schemes
2 'One off' unrepeated unit design √ √ √ √ Various multiple standardized unit-designs under each schemes

3 Easily defined source of Environmental impact √ √ √ √ Multiple sources of Environmental impact at from various units

4 Scheme often located at one geographical location √ √ Multiple geographical location for various schemes

5 Relatively easier sub-contracting √ √ √ Multiple interdependent sub-contracting under various schemes

6 Relatively controlled complimenting 'One-Off' √ √ √ Series of several complimenting 'One-Off' Infrastructure' e.g
Infrastructure' roads, water etc.
7 Relatively Simple Procurement Systems in material √ √ Complex network of Procurement Systems in material and
and services services
8 One-off preliminary activities for project √ √ Multiple-Collinear repeated 'preliminary' activities on each units

9 One-off interrelated skill tasks on the project √ √ Repetitive interrelated skill tasks on standardized housing units

10 Controlled and Low extent of Virtual Team √ High level Virtual Team participants
participants
11 Simple network of team relationship √ √ Complex Network of Team relationship on various units and
schemes
12 Easily determinate Construction Method to single √ √ Complex Construction Process/Method
project
13 Relatively fewer known source of risks √ √ High anticipated/related complex network of risks on schemes

14 Single duration for project √ √ √ Multiple duration for various standardized design-units under
schemes

Source: Authors compilation from Literature

4
4.0 METHOD OF STUDY
In order to determine the 'unique features' of Mass Housing projects (MHPs), a literature review
was done by comparing MHPs with 'one-off' traditional projects from management perspective.
This was done to establish from literature the features of MHPs that most likely make them
different from the traditional 'one-off' projects. Through a focus group discussion by three expert
in MHPs, the identified unique features based on their physical, organisational and operational
particularities were subjected to intense scrutiny and discussion and was thus pruned. The findings
(As shown in Table 1.0) were then modelled into questionnaire survey for persons with experience
and involvement in MHPs and also have knowledge in project management practice to determine
their level of agreement to the features on a five (5) point likert scale.

The respondents drawn largely from Ghanaian House Construction industry were persons who
have been associated with housing development through Research, Construction, Education and
Policy and/or Management. These domain respondents remain critical stakeholders in MHPs
implementation. The study being a critically specialized area, the experience and knowledge of the
respondents are critical to ensure right interpretations of the variables and also make correct
contribution. Mean scores were used to measure the level of agreement to the various variables by
respondents whilst Kruskal-Wallis was used to assess the level of agreement between the various
groups of respondents on the variables.

4.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1.1 Background of Respondents
In all, a total of 58 questionnaires were distributed to persons in MHPs with considerable
experience from construction perspective from the Ghana Real Estate Development Association
(GREDA), Policy and Management from the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing in
Ghana. Persons in Research and Education were drawn from Building and Road Research Institute
(BRRI) in Ghana and private practitioners. These groups of respondents were considered for the
study because they remain key stakeholders and participants in MHPs and are critical to decision
making on mass housing development in Ghana. Out of this, 36 responses were received giving a
response rate of 62%. The summary of respondents is represented in Table 2.0 and Figure 1.0
below.

5
 Table 2.0: CHARACTERISTICS AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONDENTS
VARIABLES FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Years of Involvement in MHPs 0-5 years 6 16.7%

10 27.8%
6-10 years

12 33.2%
11-15 years
8
22.2%
16 years and above

Nature of Involvement in MHPs CONSTRUCTION 15 41.7%

RESEARCH 10 27.8%

4 11.1%
EDUCATIONAL

7 19.4%
POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT

Source: Field Data

KEY:

Figure 1.0: Nature of Involvement in Housing Development

From the data, about 83% of the respondents had above 5years of experience. This suggests they
are more likely to understand the subject matter and give right and accurate interpretations to the
variables. Also, 42% of the responses were from people in housing construction whilst persons in
research and education constituted 39% as in Figure 1.0. Also 19.4% were in policy and

6
 management. This gives a fairly balanced spectrum of responses from the main domain of MHPs
stakeholders and participants.

4.1.2 UNIQUE FEATURES OF MHPS

The mean scores of respondents to each of the variables were used to measure their extent of
agreement or otherwise on the variables. On a likert scale from 1 to 5 (1=Strongly Disagree,
2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4 Agree and 5=Strongly Agree), where 3.0 is pegged as neutral, the mean
score of responses on each variable must be more than 3.0 to accept the variable as a unique
feature to MHPs. A mean score less than this is thus rejected since it represent a disagreement to
the variable as represented in Table 3.0

TABLE 3.0: MEAN SCORES OF VARIABLES

S/No. FEATURES Mean Std. Deviation Remarks

1 MULTIPLE SITE FOR VARIOUS UNITS 4.42 .554 ACCEPTED

2 MULTIPLE STANDARDIZED DESIGN-UNITS IN SCHEME 4.28 .615 ACCEPTED

3 MULTIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1.83* .811 REJECTED

4 MULTIPLE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION FOR SCHEMES 4.06 .715 ACCEPTED

5 MULTIPLE INTERDEPENDENT SUB-CONTRACTING ACCEPTED

4.22 .637
UNDER SCHEME

6 MULTIPLE ONE-OFF INFRASTRUCTURE 1.64* .961 REJECTED

7 COMPLEX NETWORK OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS 3.78 .681 ACCEPTED

8 MULTI-COLLINEAR REPEATED PRELIMINARY ACCEPTED

4.39 .549
ACTIVITIES ON UNITS

9 REPETITIVE TASKS ON STANDARDIZED UNITS 4.14 .639 ACCEPTED

10 VIRTUAL TEAM PARTICIPANTS 4.17 .655 ACCEPTED

11 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION METHOD 1.67* .894 REJECTED

12 COMPLEX NETWORK OF RISK FROM VARIOUS UNITS 1.72* .815 REJECTED

13 COMPLEX NETWORK OF TEAM RELATIONSHIP 4.44 .558 ACCEPTED

14 MULTIPLE DURATION FOR UNITS UNDER SCHEMES 4.03 .654 ACCEPTED

Source: Field Data

From Table 3.0 above, variables 3, 6, 11, and 12 had means scores less than 3.0 which was the cut
off point. This suggests that respondents strongly disagree with these variables as being unique
features of MHPs and were thus rejected. Again these variables had the highest standard
deviations above 0.8 which is close to 1.0. This suggests that there is low level of consistency and

7
high variability or diversity in the interpretations and responses offered by the respondents on
these variables. Thus even though these variables were rejected, one can have a sense of descent
from some quarters on the rejection of these as not being unique features of mass housing projects

4.1.3 LEVEL OF AGREEMENT OF UNIQUE FEATURES OF MHPS

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non parametric of ANOVA and is essentially useful to compare
means of more than two groups of an independent variable with relatively small sample size and
to avoid the violations of assumptions under ANOVA (Coates, 2001; Field, 2005a). Following the
mean score analysis, the 10-accepted variables (see table 3.0) were subjected to the Kruskal-
Wallis test. From the respondents as indicated in Figure 1.0, four main groups were identified
namely persons involved in housing development from Research, Construction, Education and
Policy and/or Management perspectives. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed at a 95%
confidence level to determine the extent of agreement on the variables among the various groups
as presented in Table 4.0.

8
 TABLE 4.0: AGREEMENT ON THE VARIABLES AMONG THE GROUPS
a,b
Test Statistics

6. MULTI-
4. MULTIPLE COLLINEAR
2. MULTIPLE 3. MULTIPLE INTERDEPENDENT 5. COMPLEX REPEATED 7. REPETITIVE 9. COMPLEX 10. MULTIPLE

1. MULTIPLE STANDARDIZED GEOGRAPHICAL SUB- NETWORK OF PRELIMINARY TASKS ON NETWORK OF DURATION FOR
SITE FOR DESIGN-UNITS IN LOCATION FOR CONTRACTING PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES ON STANDARDIZED 8. VIRTUAL TEAM TEAM UNITS UNDER
VARIOUS UNITS SCHEME SCHEMES UNDER SCHEME SYSTEMS UNITS UNITS PARTICIPANTS RELATIONSHIP SCHEMES

Chi-Square 9.608 4.470 1.446 2.905 1.465 4.212 2.053 5.573 2.460 7.529

df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Asymp. Sig. .022* .215 .695 .406 .690 .239 .561 .134 .483 .057

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: HOW ARE YOU INVOLVED IN HOUSING DEV'T: 1.

RESEARCH, 2. CONSTRUCTION, 3. EDUCATIONAL and 4. POLICY &
MANAGEMENT

Source: Field Data

9
In order to determine whether there is significant variations in the responses among the groups, the
Sig.-value (p) and the chi-square values are critically examined (Coates, 2001). When the 'p'-
value is less than 0.05 (p<0.05), it suggests that there is significant variations in the means being
compared from the samples and that there is inconsistencies in the interpretations given to the
variables by the various groups. Dwelling on the results from Table 4.0, the p- values were more
than 0.05 (p>0.05) except for variable 1. The chi-square values suggests no significant variations
among the groups as well except for variable 1. A p-value greater than 0.05 means that the
variability in the groups is about the same at the given significance level. That is the scores and
interpretations in one condition/group do not vary much more than the scores in the other groups.
Put scientifically, it means that the variability or diversity in the groups is not significantly
different at a 95% confidence level. This suggests that there is high level of consistencies, low
variability and strong agreement in the interpretations and responses given between the various
groups on the variables at a 95% confidence level. This is an indication that generally the various
groups agreed to the listed 10 variables being the unique features of MHPs. It is critically
significant to highlight on variable 1 from Table 4.0 which has p-value less than 0.05. This
suggests that there is a statistically significant difference in the interpretations given between the
various groups on this two variables. It is an indication that though there is an agreement to this
feature as unique feature to MHPs as presented in the mean scores (see table 3.0), there is
variability in the interpretations between the groups in their responses.

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

Mass Housing Projects (MHPs) differ significantly from 'one-off' traditional projects and thus
requires unique management styles and skills in their management approach. In order to improve
the communication and managerial inefficiencies among the project team in MHPs
implementation, its clearly defined unique features is critical. Gaining knowledge and a precise
understanding of the characteristics and particularities of MHPs is a giant step towards increasing
the managerial effectiveness to successfully deliver the housing units at the full benefit of
stakeholders and meeting goals. Currently, several managerial styles and efforts to tackle mass
housing projects by drawing on existing principles and practices that are more peculiar to
traditional projects have yielded more unproductive hours and managerial ineffectiveness (Enhassi
& Burges, 2007; Enhassi, 1997). This questionnaire survey has revealed 10-unique features of
MHPs drawing from respondents of considerable experience and involvement in housing
developing from research, construction, education and policy & management perspectives.

10
Dwelling on their experiences, the respondents agreed at 95% confidence level the following as
the unique features of mass housing projects namely:
'Multiple construction sites for various housing units under each schemes', 'Various multiple
standardized unit-designs under each schemes', 'Multiple geographical location for various
schemes', 'Multiple interdependent sub-contracting under various schemes', 'Multiple-Collinear
repeated 'preliminary' activities on each units', 'Complex network of Procurement Systems in
material and services', 'Repetitive interrelated skill tasks on standardized housing units', 'High
level Virtual Team participants', 'Complex Network of Team relationship on various units and
schemes' and 'Multiple duration for various standardized design-units under schemes'.

Knowledge of the 'unique features' of MHPs is an important step that would engender the
development of unique management styles and frameworks and developing managerial
competency models suitable for these type of projects. This will also help in overcoming the
challenges inherent in the management of MHPs especially in developing countries. A very
important recommendation from this paper is the need for future research to explore these
established features to understand their underlying factors to enable for a more pragmatic
management framework for MHPs. Though this studies is intended for the impact of the unique
features on communication performance among the project team, based on physical,
organisational and operational features, the features could be classified under these domain and
the correlation among should be explored as well.

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to sincerely thank all the professionals who participated and responded to
the questionnaire survey, especially managers of the selected GREDA members and staff at BRRI.

7.0 REFERENCES
Ahadzie (2007) A Model for Predicting the Performance of Project Managers in
Mass House Building Projects In Ghana. A PhD thesis presented to the University of
Wolverhampton. United Kingdom

Ahadzie D., Proverbs D. and Olomolaiye P. (2007) ‘Critical success criteria for mass housing
building projects in developing countries’ International Journal of Project Management
vol. 26, issue 6, p. 675-687

Chua, D K H and Goh, Y M (2005) Poisson model of construction incident occurrence.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(6), 715-722.

11
Enshassi A., Mohamed S. And , Abushaban S. (2007) Factors Affecting the Performance of
Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

Enhassi, A. (1997) Site organization and supervision in housing projects in the Gaza Strip,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15, No.2, pp. 93 -99.

Favié, R., & Maas, G. (2008) Ranking Construction Project Characteristics. (Accessed on
11/8/2012 via)
http://www.rubenfavie.com/media/1669/cib2008_ranking%20construction%20project
%20characteristics.pdf
Haynes, W. (2002) Transportation at the Millenium: In Search of a Megaproject Lens., The
Review of Policy Research, 19 (2), pp. 62–89.

Henderson, L. S. (2009) The impact of project managers' communication competencies:

Validation and extension of a research model for virtuality, satisfaction, and
productivity on project teams- Proj Mgmt Jrnl, 39: 48–59. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20044

Hernández F. M. (2008) Analysis of the Espoo Convention as applied to mega projects: The case
of Nord Stream. Thesis Submitted to Lunds Universitet in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Lund University Center for
Sustainability Studies May 2008.

Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1997) Appropriate Appraisal and Apportionment of Megaproject Risks,

Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123 (2), pp. 51–56.

Vanita, A., & Yang, J. (2006) Communication Protocol for Building Project Management -
The Potential of I.T. Enhanced Approaches for the Indian Building Practice.
Proceedings of the CIB W89 International Conference on Building Education and
Research, 10-13 April, 2006, China, Hong Kong.
Thorpe, A., Blismas N., and Sher, W. (1999), The nature and characteristics of multi-site
construction projects and programmes. (Accessed on 22/01/2013 via) -
http://www.arcom.ac.uk/- docs/proceedings/ar1999-541-
549_Blismas_Sher_and_Thorpe.pdf

Assessing Project Characteristics-

http://www.gentner.com/cps/rde/xbcr/infocomm/AVBPAssessingProject.pdf
(Accessed; 11/01/2013)
Turk, S. S. and Güven, O. (2008) Land Acquisition Methods for the Mass Housing Projects:
Case Study Istanbul, Integrating Generations FIG Working Week 2008 Stockholm,
Sweden 14-19 June 2008

Folaranmi, A. O., (2012) Mass Housing in Nigeria, Customize the Brief: Provide a Desired
House, Journal of Civil and Environmental Research ISSN 2222-1719 Vol 2, No.4,
2012

Yüksel, Y. D. and Gülçin PULAT GÖKMEN, G. P. (2010) Changing of Mass Housing

Production by the Government in Turkey-Istanbul Technical University.

12
 Manu, P, Ankrah, N, Proverbs, D and Suresh, S (2010) An approach for determining the
extent of contribution of construction project features to accident causation. Safety Science,
48 (6), 687-692.

Field A. (2005a), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, London Sage Pubications

Coates S. J and Steed L. G., (2001), SPSS Analysis without Anguish, (Version 10) John Wiley
& Sons Ltd, Sydney-Australia

Behm, M (2005) Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept.
Safety Science, 43(8), 589-611.

McKay, L J, Gibb, A G F, Haslam, R and Pendlebury, M (2002) Implications for the effect of
standardization and pre-assembly on health, safety and accident causality- preliminary results. In:
Greenwood, D (Ed) 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, University of Northumbria, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management.
Edmonds, G.A. and Miles, D.W.J. (1984) Foundations for Change: Aspects of the construction
industry in developing countries, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Adinyira, E., Botchway, E. and Kwofie T. E -Publication of Paper in

Journal of Engineering Management Research-CANADA. 'Determining Critical
Project Success Criteria for Public Housing Building Projects (PHBPs) in Ghana'.
Engineering Management Research; Vol. 1, No. 2; 2012- (ISSN 1927-7318 E-ISSN
1927-7326)
Kipp, A; Riemer, K; and Wiemann, S, "IT Mega Projects: What They Are and Why They Are
Special" (2008). ECIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 152.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2008/152 ( accessed: 12/01/2013)

13

View publication stats